If so, then absolutely not. We have the bill of rights that led to a series of laws that have stood muster all they way up to the SCOTUS. These laws say that a statute of limitations is in effect.

If you mean investigate in the court of public opinion, then yes it should and it has. Here is what we found.

Ms. Ford is a liberal professor from California. She is an active member of the "nevertrump" crowd. She has been graded as a 2.4 rating by her students. She is described by students as aggressive and if you cross her she becomes vindictive. She has proudly displayed her vagina hat in several protests against President Trump. Not one person in her personal circle from 30 plus years ago has come forward to confirm her experience, in fact the opposite has occurred, every single person that ran in the same circle has stated so far that this never happened.

If I was Judge Kavanaugh, I'd be firing up a legal team to go after her. She should be the one who is criminally investigated.

There are two types of investigation that are possible in this case, both of which include penalties for lying -- the FBI can reopen the background check and investigate the charges. This would not be a criminal investigation. It would result in a report to the Senate. Or the Senate can conduct its own investigation.

I couldn't possibly mean "investigate in the court of public opinion" because there is no such thing.

Since Ford is a Democrat, she can't be part of the "nevertrump crowd" since one of the prerequisites of being a NeverTrumper is being a member of the Republican Party. Democrats against Trump are just Democrats.

As for the charges you levy against her, I have no way of knowing if any of that is true (and neither do you) (and conversely, neither of us have any way of knowing if her claims are true, or not) but all of that is irrelevant in determining whether she's telling the truth. All of that could be true but that wouldn't mean she is lying just as all of it could be false and it wouldn't mean she was telling the truth.

The fact that feinstein monster pulled this from the hat under which she kept it for wayyyy too long, in the 11th hour, makes the whole s#/+ storm questionable to start. Heap on top of that all of the witnesses to come forward from the time and "place" in question, and the very suspect political situations and connections with which the complainant is involved, this should garner no further investigations.

An accusation of rape is very serious and has serious consequences. If it did occur, then something should be done about it. This is also the same as if it did not happen (false charges). Both sides (Kavanaugh or Ford) at this point have a serious issue that should be looked into regardless of the timing or the political outcome.

An accusation of rape is extremely serious! Consequently one should be absolutely certain of the facts before making such. HE IS NOT ACCUSED OF RAPE! It is an accusation that he tried to rape her. Which is a thought in her mind if any of it did happen. She reportedly admits to having no idea where the alleged incident happened, who owned the house in which it is alleged to have occurred, or when it happened. She also claims there was excessive drinking which might affect her thinking. Most importantly she refuses to be placed under oath in regards to the allegation. For a 35 year old allegation, the very least that should be required of her is to be placed under oath and interviewed. Not knowing the facts can make you a liar. Right Brian?

If she's interviewed by the FBI and lies, she could be charged with a crime (see, Collins). She's asked for an FBI investigation so, apparently, she's willing to take her chances on any challenge to the veracity of her story.

There's nothing per se suspicious about her recounting of the events on their face, including admitting to what she can't remember.

I'm not defending how Feinstein handled things but as pointed out elsewhere, Ford asked her to keep it confidential (why she would tell Feinstein and then make that request is unclear to me). Feinstein turned the information over to the FBI only after word of it had leaked.

There's plenty to be suspicious about with how this was handled in that regard.

One point: The nature of human memory: Ford could 100 percent believe everything she's said and in reality, none of it ever happened. Kavanaugh could honestly and legitimately have no memory of these events, and all of it could have happened. Hell, it never could have happened but because of what Kavanaugh has read about it, he could start to believe it's true and doubt his own prior memory. That's the chief problem with this case -- human memory can't be trusted. It's not reliable. We are likely to never know what happened.

That of course, doesn't mean there shouldn't be an effort to suss out the truth. This is a major appointment in our Constitutional system. We need to be as sure as possible that a Supreme Court nominee didn't lie to the Senate during the confirmation process. For the partisans on either side, of course, that isn't good enough and never will be.

A SC Justice can be impeached in basically the same way he can be vetted and confirmed. Political shenanigans of a suspicious nature, in the 11th hour should not be allowed to antagonize a nominee who has already been vetted and about to have the vote finally commenced. If they were to actually find some credible evidence (which the more I research the more I doubt that could happen) then let the chips fall.
"Only after it was leaked." Man, you'd really have to be gullible to believe that wasn't too convenient.https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-metoo-kavanaugh-ambush-1537197395

You are 100% correct Daniel........some here may not remember the Thomas hearings. Another stunt from the left. Here is what I do know, if the republicans did what the dems are doing there would be hell to pay.

My ex-wife was the victim of two sexual assaults when she was younger - both happened when she was in her late teens or early twenties. She told me of these instances years ago in the late 80's, before we were married. As she is just a year younger than me, these assaults would have occurred around 1980.

Even though it was maybe a decade earlier, even at that time she would have been hard pressed to disclose in tremendous detail the exact address of the assaults, or the dates, or even the day of the week either happened. The mind does some odd stuff to protect itself from certain traumatic events.